I know many topics here in the forum tend to hover around the “Demarcation Problem” (What qualifies as ‘scientific’ and what doesn’t). And so many subjects do involve scientific questions that also have spiritual implications. Here is a spiritual topic that I think has some ‘grabbable’ scientific handles as it could probably be studied in sociological terms.
Our Sunday school class at church has been reading through the book, Following the Call: Living the Sermon on the Mount Together. And one of the many sections in this book (section or chapter 5) is about the “blessed are the poor” beattitude. I was so intrigued and moved by how this chapter began that I want to share that here, with apologies to Philip Yancey for shortening and summarizing his contribution to it - his words were better than mine here of course, but this is what I could fit on a ‘poster page’ to put up on my classroom wall. The list Yancey shares from Monika Hellwig, though, I included completely with no changes. Here is my created ‘poster image’ shared below. (and a couple suggested discussion questions to follow - also from the book.) Hopefully you can click on the graphic to enlarge it to readable form for yourself.
I find it interestng that the Good News puts it as “spiritually poor” whereas I would have thought it more “low in Spirit” as in depressed or upset. Which would correlate better with Those who mourn" .
There’s the usual reversal of what is now to what is to come that seems a repeating theme in Christ’s teaching, implying that those who are blessed on earth witl fare worse in Heaven and vice versa.
Perhaps there is a different financial status quo in the modern world, at least in the USA, Europe etc. whereas there is more predominance in mental anguish.
I would have thought that was self evident in the difference between how things are now as opposed to how things would be in the “New Kingdom”
However ther eis an imdeiacy in Christ’s teaching that is hard to understand in the light of how much time has past since without the dramatic changes of that Kingdom “whicjh is upon you”.
It is one of those “Questions” we find most difficult to confront let alone try and answer.
The juxtaposition of earthly and spiritual wealth becomes more poingniant the morre wealth we accumalate, and we cling to such words as
“Those who have been given much, much will be expected” as a sort of getout claus as long as we at least try and be charitable.
Having been bot very poor and at least comfortable (financially) I found it was more human percepton that spiritual that was markedly different. When I was unablble to give, People gave me a wider birth, than when I was (am) financially secure.
Another essay in the same section I already referenced above (this one by Dorothy Day) was about how we mistakenly think we can live in voluntary poverty just by abdicating or limiting our possessions (money or things). True poverty (according to Day) will always have precarity associated with it (or precariousness). Because along with money and possessions (or perhaps by using those things) - we are also addicted to control. Poor people often live lives that are significantly removed from any sense of control. Circumstances can change their lives in moments and they are used to just having to trust others (or God) to see them through whatever may come their way.
Most people (even among the rich) manage to think they have too much precarity already (stock portfolio fluctuations don’t count - but that doesn’t stop the rich from being stressed about such things … will my retirement account still be there a decade or two from now?). But all that hearkens back to #6 in the original list from the OP. We mistake luxuries for necessities.
No doubt we do. However, there are some questions in my mind as to how that is also true for the poor as well. My wife is great about helping a few single mothers and single ladies who are definitely poor by American standards, living in Section 8 housing or worse, living on very little income. My impression is that as a rule, they tend to make very poor decisions regarding money, buying items of limited usefulness on a whim, spending more on toys and frivolous items than more affluent people, spending large amounts of their food budget on fast food and junk food. Some of those decisions are made out of ignorance of nutrition and cooking skills, but a lot seems to be out of an attitude that immediate gratification is better as tomorrow is uncertain. And a luxury item adds an element of enjoyment to an otherwise dreary existence.
And men in similar situations tend to make similar decisions to spend their money on truck accessories and beer rather saving for a goal.
Perhaps that is all coming from a wrong viewpoint by me, imposing my cultural standards on those who come from a different place. I grew up in a poor household, and perhaps the depression mentality of my parents rubbed off on me too much, as they lived simply and frugally, perhaps to a fault.
It has been said that if you gave a grop of people exatly the same amount of money and possessions within a week or two some would be millionaires and some would be destitute. It is probabley an exageration but the underlying principles remain. Povety and wealth are as much a result of skills and abilities as environmental or een governmental pressures. Even at its hieght, Russian Comunists were by no means all equal.
It is too easy to try and simplify the great divide between poverty and wealth. The fact that people manage to cross it both ways would indicate that it is more complex than we will ever fully comprehend.
Bothe religions and polititians have an ideal of equality that is unnatainable without imposition or legislation, be it from government or clergy,
Some can certainly find that in Christianity - But from Paul we find the exhortation for sharing: “… that those who have much do not have too much, and those who have little don’t have too little.” (2 Corinthians 8:15 - quoting an Exodus passage). So that doesn’t sound like some sort of system where legalisms are being employed to enforce absolute equality; which - as you point out- would be impossible to do in any case. To use that, however, to write off all wealth considerations and turn a blind eye to obscene wealth hoarding and extreme inequality is to again, ignore the vast bulk of scriptures that do not tolerate that situation within the household of faith.
I was watching an episode of The Chosen not long ago and it had the Beatitudes. A statement from (IIRC) St. John Chrysostom came to mind:
“Rejoice in the poor, for they are God’s invitation to generosity!”
I know someone who is a christian who seems to think his financial status correlates with his relationship to God.
He recently lost his drivers license after purchasing a motorcycle then getting caught speeding @ 35km/hr over the limit. That is automatic loss of license for 6 months in Victoria Australia. He then lost his job because he doesnt have a license.
I have tried to explain the principles of cause and effect to the guy, however he is convinced God is testing him
Thanks Merv! This chart is excellent I downloaded it for future reference, I think this would be very useful for discussion with those who are somehow convinced (concerned?) that Jesus and Christianity in general just wants everyone to be poor, have nothing and be miserable.
That was always my interpretation of the famous verses “the last will be first”. But of course money isn’t the only way to be blessed on Earth
It’s only my opinion, but I honestly don’t think you are in the wrong here - first of all I wouldn’t classify this kind of behaviour as “cultural” - these people are financially dysfunctional and what they really need is a dedicated financial advisor providing them with counselling/advice. Not that there’s any chance of that happening.
Nobody has guaranteed tomorrow. This attitude is unfortunately what keeps people in poverty, it’s a fact. So I’m not feeling so lenient towards it. Maybe I should be more understanding, maybe I shouldn’t, who knows.
I suppose we would need a Greek scholar to delve into the difference in the wordings “poor” and “poor in spirit”. I don’t get too hung up on that, as I think the teaching could apply to various aspects of being “poor”. I agree with each of the points about why the “poor” are called blessed by Jesus. There is a certain simplicity of life for the poor – each day one is reminded that they are in need of God’s mercy. The distractions of the more well-off are many. I would include myself and many in the Western world in the category of having enough. This is not to say that we cannot seek the Kingdom of God if we aren’t “poor”. There are many distractions, but also many more possibilities for participating in the Kingdom. I am not one to “throw rocks” at those who are well off – for example professional athletes. It should be noted that they work very hard at what they do, and once in a while we get glimpses of great philanthropic endeavours that some of them are involved in.
Thanks for bringing up the topic. It reminds me of Proverbs 30:7-9
“Two things I ask of you, Lord;
do not refuse me before I die:
8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.
9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God"
Socioeconomic status behaves as having a strong hereditary component. It is not in the genes, it is herited through the role models we get from our parents / surrounding subculture and through the wealth we inherit.
Education correlates strongly with income. If education is costly, the children of the poor cannot get university-level education and stay in low-income jobs, with few exceptions. That is the reason why a jump from rags to riches (or at least from poor to middle class) happens more often in northern Europe where the governments pay most of the education of citizens than in USA or other countries with expensive education fees.
In some families depending on social wellfare, the children get the role model that being poor is an ok condition. They have low self-esteem, have ‘inhaled’ the negative expectations of their surroundings (‘you are not going to succeed’) and set their life aim accordingly. They have lived in families that do not have any wealth, they do not have enough of money themselves, so there is no money to save.
Here, the social welfare system keeps the ‘income support’ as the last tool for aiding the poor, meaning that if you have any wealth, you have to sell it first before you can get income support. In that way, the welfare system actively works against saving money - if you have saved some money or if your children have money in their bank accounts, your family has to spend it before you can get income support from the welfare system. That sets a barrier against rising from poverty. Education may lift some individuals from poverty but only if the education is not expensive.
For the children living in poverty, the lack of money sets a difficult barrier to having good social contacts with those coming from families with some wealth. When your schoolmates go somewhere to eat or to social activities, you cannot participate if you do not have money. Sports equipment may be expensive and the sports clubs have yearly fees, so attending such sports as hobby may not be possible. Children compare the clothes and equipment they have in school, so if you have the cheapest ones, that may put you socially aside, especially when you cannot participate in costly activities. It is understandable that in such circumstances, the young are willing to spend their last money to expensive clothes or equipment, or to going out with their schoolmates, to gain social acceptance.
The problem of poverty is a multi-faceted one and solving it would need such political or welfare actions that are not popular. Financial advisors may help but the advisors can only help if you have some money or a possibility to collect savings.
As with miracles the world is different from Scripture. Altruism was a way of life. Caring for widdows and orphans was demanded, not voluntary. Begging was a legitimate “Profession”. If you were rich you were either crooked or blessed. “There will always be poor” was not cynicism or even pragmatism, it was just part of the system of life.
As pointed out money underpins society and until or unless that changes, the question of spirituality is put on the back shelf.
During that time, there were little taxes and no organized welfare system in the sense of modern societies. Helping of widows and orphans was necessary to prevent starvation.
The situation may be different today, depending on the society. In some societies, there may be a need for similar caring as during 2000 years ago. In many countries, the state has an official welfare system that is funded by taxes. In such countries, people rarely starve because they can get help from the official welfare system and people are forced to participate in the funding through taxes.
My general impression is that there is tax competition between countries, where governments lower taxes to get more companies and taxpayers into the country. The same happens between political parties as the parties try to get more votes by promising lower taxes. The lowering of taxes has reduced the funding of welfare systems. That has dropped many poor to a challenging situation. There seems to be a growing need for voluntary helping of the poor, including help through churches. Much depends on what the voters want but the situations in many countries seem to be worse for the poor compared to the situation 30 years ago.
So we are more civilized? Leave it to the government!
Politics is a game all to itself. I would not get involve even if you paid me. (The pay for politicians has become outrageous, so that has less of an impact)
Taxes, welfare, benefits, legislation, control, power, prestige, I see nothing of real value. Don’t get me wrong, there are some genuine altruistic and caring politicians but they are few and far between and even so have to be able to compromise and barter, Government and hierachy is a necessary by-product of human socialisation and function… Chrurch politics are worse.
At the end of the day we do what we can, or think necessary. If we paniced every with disaster or need we would lose our minds rapidly, not to mention any wealth we have. “The poor will always be with you”? Maybe the Star Trek Universe will come to pass and prove Jesus wrong
(Emphasis my own)
Sure, even more reason to not pass bad attitudes/ habits around money to your children - their future is literally at stake here.
It’s funny how the system set up in order to alleviate poverty ends trapping people in it. Any top ups of low salaries are just plain wrong - government is literally subsiding billionaires this way and it is normalising not paying decent wages. A couple months ago I’ve watched a report about how benefit system here in UK is literally preventing people from getting any employment whatsoever!
I am aware of all the above problems and I agree with you here.
A 15 min TED talk that is perhaps relevant to this topic
Sure, I was absolutely not suggesting that this was an answer to poverty - at best individuals could be helped in this way, but they can’t afford it so it’s irrelevant anyway. And even if someone wanted to do the work pro bono, that still probably won’t work. It is very likely that financially dysfunctional person will suffer from some kind of mental health issues, so another skilled professional would need to be involved, otherwise it won’t work. Another issue is being in a financially abusive environment - this usually amounts to having an exploitative partner, family members or sometimes simply friends. I’ve seen this kind of thing happening right in front of me more than once but you just can’t tell your clients to dump their bf/gf. Well, you could - but it’s not gonna end well!
So the bottom line is that almost everything is stacked up against you if you’re poor. There are powerful forces at work that are deeply anti-christian. I dare say even individuals who literally want there to be as many poor people as possible.
So in this case trying to fight by refusing to take part in consumerism (which no doubt is a big part of it) and taking control of your finances rather than indulging in “shopping therapy” is actually an act of rebellion. Perhaps if we sold it as such to people, they might be more willing to give it a go - it sounds kinda cool this way
I was thinking about it. It is relative on where (and when!) you live.
Hum, I would argue that in the Star Trek Universe, the poor are still there on the undeveloped planets, but the Techno-bros in the Federation have plenty, so Jesus is still right.
Unfortunately, there is much truth in that. One thing I have been wondering is how money attracts money. If you are poor, almost everything is more expensive for you. Try to get a loan - if you get one, the interest rate may be double, even triple if you are poor, compared to a wealthy person. A wealthy person can make profitable investments and get a lower tax rate by planning, compared to a poor that has no possibilities for investments or tax planning. Etc.
Money or the drive to become rich seems to be some sort of idol for many. It seems that these people seek safety and acceptance from and through wealth, instead of from God. The drive to become rich and then richer, together with selfishness, leads many to almost anti-christian attitudes, even if they call themselves ‘Christian’. Try to call them idol worshippers and you get a fierce denial. Yet, their actions speak louder than their words.
I downloaded it for future reference, I think this would be very useful for discussion with those who are somehow convinced (concerned?) that Jesus and Christianity in general just wants everyone to be poor, have nothing and be miserable.
but you just can’t tell your clients to dump their bf/gf. Well, you could - but it’s not gonna end well!
